A lawyer accused of murder acknowledged making several police statements in the past despite his refusal to do so in the case of the disappearance of the mother of his child.

Prosecutors highlighted a series of police statements made by defendant Kamal Worrell in the two years before Chavelle Dillon-Burgess was last seen.

However, Mr Worrell told a Supreme Court jury that the prosecutors were comparing “apples to oranges”.

He said two of the statements, filed in 2019, were related to conflicts between him and Ms Dillon-Burgess, with one written in response to charges made against him by her that year.

Mr Worrell explained he made the second statement against her so that it would remain “on record” and that he had not pursued charges against her.

He said the third statement, which dated back to 2018, was related to a former girlfriend who had been stalking him and sending messages that made him worry about the safety of Ms Dillon-Burgess, who was pregnant with his child at the time.

However, he accepted that in that police complaint he made no reference to Ms Dillon-Burgess.

Mr Worrell later said: “Chavelle was living with me. She was well pregnant. It concerned her.

“That’s the reason I pressed charges. Not out of concern for me, but for Chavelle and my son who she was carrying.”

He said that the woman in that case was subsequently prosecuted and plead guilty to offences made in the allegations.

He added he felt he had no need to make a formal statement in the disappearance of Ms Dillon-Burgess because a missing persons report had already been made and he had already told police all that he knew.

“I had already given them all the information I could to officers,” he said. “Whether I made a statement or not, the information was the same.”

Mr Worrell has denied allegations of murdering Ms Dillon-Burgess on an unknown date between April 10 and June 11, 2020.

He has also denied a charge of wounding Ms Dillon-Burgess and a charge of common assault related to an incident on June 1, 2019 and six counts of common assault related to an incident on November 14, 2018.

Mr Worrell had told the court that Ms Dillon-Burgess left the home they shared after an argument on the morning of April 11, 2020, in which she threw items including linens into the fireplace.

He said she returned that evening, but another argument broke out, in which Ms Dillon-Burgess threw their child’s iPad, and he threatened to call the police before she left again.

Mr Worrell said that after she had left in the morning, he had set his phone to record and left it on the fridge in case she returned in a hostile mood, but turned it off when she did not immediately come back.

Daniel Kitson-Walters, for the prosecution, questioned Mr Worrell about the sound of a zipper heard in the recording.

Mr Worrell said the noise was the sound of a suitcase that he had packed with some of Ms Dillon-Burgess’s things.

He added that he was playing classical music to calm their child, who was upset by the argument earlier that day.

Mr Worrell also added that when she returned to the house in the evening, she had thrown additional linens into the fireplace before she departed.

“It was clear to me that she at least had some where to go,” he said. “I didn’t know where.”

He accepted that Covid-19 lockdown was in place on April 11, limiting the ability to move around the island, and that Ms Dillon-Burgess did not have a car.

Mr Kitson-Walters asked: “Ms Dillon-Burgess left the house, not once but two times that day during the lockdown?”

Mr Worrell confirmed that was the case, and that she had left with a small green knapsack of items.

Questioned about an injury to his finger, seen in a video recording he made on April 14, 2020, Mr Worrell said he could not recall how he was injured - but suggested it may have been caused while gardening.

He said that Ms Dillon-Burgess briefly returned to the house on April 16 to collect items including a phone.

However, Mr Worrell accepted that he had not told police that he had seen her on that date when they spoke to him after she was reported missing.

“When they spoke to me, I don’t recall quite how they put the question to me, but I know I told them that Chavelle left the house on the 11th,” he said.

“I didn’t tell them she came back on the 16th. When she came back on the 16th, it was for a very brief period.”

The trial is expected to resume on January 8.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case